The Ideal Feudal State: Jerusalem
Dr. Helena Schrader
Feudalism was a
system of government based on interdependency between a monarch and his subjects.
In contrast to absolute monarchy based on the “divine right of kings,”
feudalism rejected centralism and authoritarian rule. Instead, evolving in an
age when the speed of communication was restricted by the speed of a horse or
sailing ship, and literacy was restricted to the elite, it was a highly
decentralized system.
Feudalism depended on local elites administering justice
and raising taxes, protecting borders and fostering economic growth. It was a
system that consciously devolved power downwards rather than concentrating it
in distant, difficult to reach capitals.
It also recognized the value of collective decision-making and checks on
royal power. Obviously, this is not the same thing as “democracy” (in any of
its forms), but it was far less arbitrary and more legalistic than many people
today realize.
Historians have
argued that the Kingdom of Jerusalem, created not organically over the
centuries but consciously by men from already developed feudal states, was the
“perfect” or ideal feudal state. (See, for example, John La Monte’s Feudal Monarchy in the Latin Kingdom of Jerusalem
1100 to 1291, Cambridge, 1932.) The Kingdom of Jerusalem also presents us
with an exceptional case study in feudalism because a number of legal treatises
cataloguing and analyzing the laws of Jerusalem were produced by first rate
legal scholars in the 13th century and have survived to this day — the
so called Assises of Jerusalem.
As English
history demonstrates — from the baronial revolt against King John (that gave us
Magna Charta) to Simon de Montfort’s Oxford Provisions and the English Civil
War itself, curbing the power of kings was a difficult, dangerous and often
divisive task. The High Court of Jerusalem is, therefore, particularly
remarkable as an example of an effective feudal check on royal power because it
ensured the integrity of the kingdom with only one instance of civil war.
Notably, the Rule of Law (as represented by the High Court) won against the
despotism (in the form of the Holy Roman Emperor Friedrich II).
The High Court
of Jerusalem combined in itself judicial, legislative and executive functions. As
La Monte words it: “Its word was law, or rather its interpretation of the
existing body of custom made law, and the king who endeavored to act without
the advice of, or contrary to the decision of, his High Court found himself
confronted with a legalized rebellion on the part of his subjects.” In
Jerusalem, the elected king (see The Elected Kingship) remained “first among
equals” vis-à-vis his barons and bishops rather than a sovereign.
The High Court
was composed of all the vassals or tenants-in-chief of the king. The
ecclesiastical lords held seats by virtue of their land holdings rather than
their spiritual positions. It met in no set place (such as Parliament did in
London), but rather could be convened in any place within the kingdom. As long
as Jerusalem was Frankish, it met most frequently there, according to some in
the Tower of David. After the loss of Jerusalem, it most commonly convened in
Acre.
 |
| Tower of David in the Citadel of Jerusalem |
Strikingly, the
King’s presence was not essential for a meeting of the High Court. The king
could designate a representative, but the Court could also meet in the absence
of the King—as it did after the death of each king in order to elect the next. Also
notable is the fact that outsiders, including King Richard I of England and
King Louis IX of France, might be invited to attend and speak at sessions of
the High Court. They might, by virtue of their prestige, even “preside” over the
session. Yet they did not have a vote — albeit, one presumes, such respected
and charismatic men must have wielded considerable influence over those who did
vote!
The duties of
the High Court were first and foremost the election of the ruler, and during
minorities or when the monarch was otherwise incapacitated by illness or
capture, the appointment of regents (baillies) of Jerusalem. The preference was
always for a close blood relation of the previous monarch, but from the
beginning this did not entail applying the rules of primogeniture strictly and
at almost all elections there were multiple claimants from the royal family
contending for the honor. In cases where a woman was the closest relative of
the reigning king, the High Court chose her husband for her to thereby elect
the king indirectly.
The High Court
made domestic policy technically not by passing laws but by “interpreting” the
“customs” of the kingdom as recorded by the “wise men” who had advised Godfrey
de Bouillon. Effectively, however, the High Court established the law in all
matters, including — interestingly — ecclesiastical issues, but most
importantly with revenue collection (taxation, customs duties, etc.), military
obligations, and inheritance law. In fact, no fief could change hands (except
to the hereditary heir based on primogeniture) without the approval of the
court (i.e. gifts and sales of land needed High Court approval). The High Court
also made foreign policy by concluding or rejecting treaties.
In practice, law
evolved out of the adjudication of disputes in which the High Court ruled based
on its interpretation of “customs,” and then recorded the decision and the
reasoning behind as a reference for future cases. This is “case law” in its
purest form.
The decisions of
the High Court were binding on everyone, including the king/queen, and could
only be rescinded by the High Court itself.
As a judicial
body, the fundamental principle was that all members of the court were equals (peers), and trial by one’s peers
was the sacrosanct foundation of law in Outremer — with important consequences for
Muslim, Jewish and Orthodox Christians, who were thereby also accorded trial by
their peers rather than the alien Frankish elite. Even the Italian communes had
their own courts. But for the Frankish, land-holding elite, the High Court was
the only court authorized to adjudicate disputes involving everything from charges
of murder, rape, and assault to wardship, debt, sale of land or horses (!),
default of service, inheritance, and — of course — High Treason.
In at least
three recorded incidents, the High Court of Jerusalem effectively opposed an
attempt by the ruling king to dispossess one of their members. In 1193, Henri
de Champagne, consort of Isabella I of Jerusalem, accused Aimery de Lusignan of
abetting his brother Guy (the deposed King of Jerusalem) in a plot to over
throw him. He arrested Aimery, but was forced to release him by the High Court
of Jerusalem. Aimery was persuaded (one presumes by the High Court) to resign
his post as Constable of Jerusalem and join his brother on Cyprus. Notably,
just five years later, the High Court would elect Aimery their king by selecting
him as Queen Isabella’s last husband after the tragic death of Henri de
Champagne.
As king,
however, Aimery made the same mistake as his predecessor: he disposed Ralph of
Tiberius on charges of treason, only to run into the refusal of the High Court to
accept his judgement. In fact, the Lord of Beirut (John d’Ibelin, eldest son of
Balian d’Ibelin) refused feudal service and was joined by other barons in an
act of passive rebellion until Ralph was restored to his fief.
The most
dramatic instance in which the High Court effectively opposed the despotism of
a monarch was, however, in the baronial revolt against the Holy Roman Emperor
Friedrich II led by John d'Ibelin — but that is material for another entry.
